Vol 4, No 16 (2020)

We analyze the representatives’ views of the school of revived natural law on the social human rights problem. We note that a key milestone in the state and legal transformations of Russia at the beginning of the 20th century was the consolidation of civil rights and freedoms for Russian citizens. We establish that representatives of the school of revived natural law developed a theory of individual rights and freedoms in the context of the relationship between the constitutional state with the ethics and morality problems. We doctrinally justify that social rights, along with political rights, occupied an important place in the catalog of human rights classification developed by scientists, due to the fact that they were associated with values such as social justice and social equality. We offer arguments indicating that representatives of the school of revived natural law considered the right to a dignified human existence as the source of social rights emergence, which were a prerequisite for the individual’s social emancipation and an attempt to transform the estate society into a civil one.

We consider the constitutional principles of Russian law in the framework of positivist legal consciousness. We note the highest value of the law constitutional principles, as the basic ideas that underlie individual branches of law and all legal regulation. We focus on the practical significance of the constitutional principles of Russian law. We point out that in order to overcome defects in the legal consciousness of the population, it is advisable to duplicate the law principles that enshrined in the Constitution of the Russian Federation and in sectoral legislation. We emphasize that the practical significance of the law constitutional principles is manifested not only in their direct role in the legal regulation of public relations, but also in the fact that in judicial practice they can be used in the case of applying the analogy of law and the analogy of legislation. We indicate that this legal and technical tool is used to fill gaps in legal regulation. It is used in many branches of Russian law: civil, civil procedural, arbitration procedural, administrative procedural, family and others. Thus, the study shows the positive role of law constitutional principles in decision-making by a law enforcer in the absence of sectoral legal norms applicable in a particular situation.

Currently, the problem of differentiating administrative and disciplinary liability, as well as the problem of bringing civil servants to justice, is considered quite relevant. The purpose of this work is to find possible solutions to the above problems. The research involves the following methods of scientific knowledge: concrete-sociological, statistical, formal-logical and comparative-legal methods. We form the opinion that the list of types of administrative liability applied to civil servants is open and controversial. We identify mandatory and additional signs of an administrative offense and distinguish between an administrative offense and a disciplinary offense. We establish that the mandatory basis for applying measures of administrative liability of a civil servant is the implementation of an administrative tort due to inaction or inaction in the exercise of such professional duties in the service. We also conclude that civil servants should be brought to disciplinary liability for violations related to their official activities, and to administrative liability – on an equal basis with citizens on a general basis. In addition, the institution of administrative liability needs legislative revision and more intensive study in practice.

Since June 1, 2019, in the Russian Federation, along with inheritance by will and hereditary succession, inheritance by inheritance contract is appeared. We emphasize that the rather long periods that have passed from the public announcement of the idea of the inheritance contract, its discussion in the scientific community and at the legislative level, did not save the rules on the inheritance contract from a number of shortcomings and controversy. In this regard, we analyze a number of controversial issues that have arisen in connection with the emergence of an inheritance contract in the system of inheritance law in Russia. We indicate that the place of the inheritance contract in the system of Russian inheritance law is still uncertain. Among other things, we consider the problem of the relationship between an inheritance contract and a will, an inheritance contract and a contract of lifelong maintenance with a dependent. In particular, we note that the fundamental difference between an inheritance contract and a life maintenance contract with a dependent is that the ownership of the property passes at the time of the conclusion of a life maintenance contract with a dependent, and in an inheritance contract – after the death of the testator. The issue of the parties to inheritance contract is also discussed. Based on the legislation analysis, we identify shortcomings in the legal regulation of relations related to the inheritance contract.

The work is devoted to the issue of determining the balance of interests of the entrepreneurial community, society and state. We conduct a fairly detailed analysis of the reasons for the restrictions imposed due to the spread of new coronavirus infection COVID-19. We work on the concepts of “public interest” and “private interest”, we investigate the limits of restrictions that the state has the right to impose in terms of entrepreneurial activity regulation. We substantiate the conclusions that the tasks of entrepreneurship’s state regulation indicate that state regulation is necessary not only for the state, but also for entrepreneurs themselves. And the introduction of restrictions, despite all their painfulness, was beneficial in the long term for entrepreneurs. We also emphasize that these restrictions are not always proportionate and adequate to the current conditions. In the course of the study, we conclude that the restrictions should be thoughtful, understandable and justified, while the state should think about counter measures of support, since in fact, in the current situation, the entrepreneurial community shared with the state all the risks and severity of consequences from the complication of the sanitary and epidemiological situation in the country.

Based on the positivist approach to consciousness the law principle, the classification of the principles of Russian civil procedure law is clarified. The principles of civil procedural law of the Russian Federation are understood as the basic provisions of the civil procedural law branch, enshrined in the Constitution of the Russian Federation and (or) the Civil Procedure Code of the Russian Federation. Depending on the source of consolidation, there are three types of normative principles of civil procedure law: 1) constitutional principles of civil procedure law, duplicated in the Civil Procedure Code of the Russian Federation; 2) constitutional principles of civil procedure law that are not duplicated in the Civil Procedure Code of the Russian Federation; 3) branch principles of civil procedure law, reflected in the Civil Procedure Code of the Russian Federation. The first group includes 12 principles, the second – 7 principles, and the third – 2 principles. In contrast to the previously proposed approach to the principles of civil procedure law in our classification, the number of principles included in the first and second groups is expanded. In particular, the first group includes the principle of legality, the principle of guaranteed protection of human and civil rights and freedoms, the principle of respect for the individual's honor and dignity, the principle of the individual's freedom and inviolability, the principle of secrecy of correspondence, telephone and other conversations, postal, telegraphic and other messages, the principle of home inviolability, the principle of freedom from the obligation to testify, and the principle of administering justice only by the court. We put forward the position that some of the normative provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure are not the initial, fundamental ideas of civil procedure law.

Taking into consideration the legal nature of evidence, we analyze the main procedural features of evidence widely used by persons participating in the case when resolving civil cases related to the protection of intellectual rights, such as screenshots of materials posted on Internet sites, electronic messages. We define the general features that characterize the indicated sources of evidence in this category of disputes. We point out, in particular, the objective influence of the procedural rules governing the rules of jurisdiction over intellectual disputes, as well as the substantive rules of Part 4 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, on the features of the development and provide evidence for the protection of intellectual rights in court, sources of evidence. We describe the relationship between the concepts of electronic documents, written evidence, and evidence generated through the use of the Internet. When applying general scientific methods of comparative analysis (in relation to certain sources of evidence) and deduction (in relation to the analysis of special norms through the prism of general, basic, main procedural institutions that regulate relations in terms of the legal nature and characteristics of the evidence presentation in the category of cases under consideration), we form the main conclusions in terms of possible options for the development of these procedural institutions. We prove the necessity of the proposed changes for the purpose of the subsequent optimal functioning, action and application of the norms governing the evidence process in this category of cases, the concept of “electronic text evidence” is introduced.

In the current difficult conditions for the economy of our state, corruption crimes represent a higher level of danger. It is necessary to reform anti-corruption activities in order to increase its effectiveness. One of the radical measures in the field of anti-corruption will be the abolition of the presumption of innocence for corrupt illegal acts. The presumption of innocence is a fundamental and irremovable principle of criminal law, which is enshrined in article 14 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation. Violation of this principle is impossible for criminal proceedings, but modern circumstances require timely, prompt, and sometimes radical solutions. It is worth not to neglect the measures of “insuring” on the part of law enforcement agencies, since otherwise it will increase the share of corruption crimes in law enforcement agencies. The content of paragraph 4 of article 14 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation is mandatory even if the presumption of innocence for corruption crimes is canceled: “A conviction cannot be based on assumptions”. At the same time, the principle of differentiation of punishment will be implemented by assigning the term of imprisonment from the minimum to the maximum, depending on the severity of the illegal act.